What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
121 Comments
- Greengoo, on 06/04/2009, -4/+78Despite what the article concludes, you shouldn't believe that it's this cut and dry.
I noticed a straight drop of about 8-10 frames per second when running World of Warcraft in particular after my move from XP Pro to Vista Ult. However, I also noticed a significant increase in frames when running HL2 or BF2142.
Your mileage may vary. - Babazoz, on 06/04/2009, -4/+42"The benchmarks don't lie!"
This makes me automatically suspect of the article and their "benchmarks." - inactive, on 06/04/2009, -2/+36I never thought I would like Windows 7... until I tried it.
- neuber, on 06/04/2009, -0/+33"XP only come in 32 bit"
That's just plain false. - Kenelm, on 06/04/2009, -4/+27Maybe because there is nothing like DirectX on other OSes?
And it's up to the game developers to choose on which API they make their games, Microsoft only proposes his, they never forced anyone developing on it. - KMartSheriff, on 06/04/2009, -0/+22Not to mention both Windows 7 and the Nvidia/ATI drivers are all in beta still. That, and none of these benchmark utilities/games we're made for Windows 7.
In any case, Windows 7 64-bit > XP or Vista - inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+18NOTHING beats an FPS on a PC though.
nothing! - m0rn1n6s74r, on 06/04/2009, -1/+18I would take this article with a grain of salt. The Release of 7 is still months away and it seems like nVidia is releasing frequent driver updates for win 7 (i have updated mine like 3 times since RC1). I would wait till the full version is out and nvidia/ati has had time to optimize their drivers a bit!
- WilliamAdama, on 06/04/2009, -5/+21Hmm based on my experience with my my Q9400, 6GB ddr2 ram, 8800GTS, Windows 7 beats XP.
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+13botnet, I thought the same thing. I never cared for Vista so was pretty much prepared to dislike Win 7. Then I tried it. XP Pro served me well for several years but after using Win 7 for just a couple of weeks going back to XP Pro was kinda ugly and clunky.
- InfernoX, on 06/04/2009, -1/+13Exactly.
OpenGL was fairly popular a few years back but it's really fallen behind. - nonymous666, on 06/04/2009, -0/+11What a waste of a read.
They're doing things like cranking down the graphics settings in FarCry2 to force the CPU to do more instead of the video card.
Then they talk about how one OS is, say, 15 fps faster than another.
I see their intent, but who's going to play FarCry2 with completely minimal settings? Crank the grpahic settings back up to real-world levels, such that the card is actually doing work like it should, and I bet the fps differences for the OS's either just completley balance out or even outright flip around to some degree (probably the former). - Raptor007, on 06/04/2009, -1/+11What do you mean "surpass consoles in eyeballs"? Any decent PC from the last 5 years will give a better picture at higher framerates than any console out right now.
You have to realize, when you play your console games at "1080p", you're generally rendering at like 1280x720 and stretching it up to the TV's resolution. If you select that resolution on any half-decent PC, you're going to get terrific framerates. - bigplrbear, on 06/04/2009, -3/+12Vista is GREAT- if you have the right computer
For those of us who don't have the right computer, Windows 7 is an excellent alternative, even IF it's still an RC - inactive, on 06/04/2009, -1/+10Upgraded the RC to Win 7 build 7201 x64, works great! XP and Vista? Bye-bye.
- doshindude, on 06/04/2009, -3/+12It's not DirectX's fault that all the other OS's suck with gaming.
- Pigeon, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8You do know optimizing drivers does give a large performance benefit right? One of the most expensive calls (CPU wise) in DirectX is DrawIndexedPrimitive(), where does a lot of that CPU time go? The driver.
- Darksoul, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8@solid12345
"but there are very few PC games that take advantage of the hardware like a console does."
Yeah that's not true at all, all the games you speak of that probably don't take advantage are console ports to the pc and even that is rare for them not to use better resolutions and high frame rates. You are just so wrong its not even funny. - petard, on 06/05/2009, -0/+7No it won't help because transparency is automatically disabled when you start a game.
- chingy1788, on 06/04/2009, -2/+9Well... benchmarks shouldn't be made specifically for Win XP/Vista right?
Anyway
Windows 7 > XP/Vista
because my laptop doesnt stutter anymore (And it did unbearably, in Win XP) - control98408, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7Now how many of those were made for win7?
- petard, on 06/05/2009, -1/+7Pentium 4 is too old.
- PhoenixReborn, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6PS3 is not a desktop computer. Try again.
- TwistyMcFister, on 06/04/2009, -1/+764-bit Win 7 with updated drivers from the video card manufacturers.
- CLShortFuse, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6Buried because OpenGL is on Page 2
- treed, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6Upscaling is an X-Box 360 thing. The PS3 won't do that.
@solid12345 I can totally notice the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 24" screen. (Of course, I sit like 4' from it.) - doshindude, on 06/05/2009, -0/+6*facepalm* The PS3 is not an operating system...
- Pigeon, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6Fail.
The PS3 supports OpenGL ES but most game developers use the console specific API for doing things with the RSX. - MxM111, on 06/04/2009, -1/+7In frame rates in games?
- treed, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Another thing to consider that isn't always obvious is that 32-bit systems have 4GB of *address space*. If you have 512MB video card, that'll soak up half a gig of your space, and your available memory will only be 3.5.
- mason092, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Most of the time when I am playing a game, I'm not too worried about if another OS might get 5 fps more. I just play it.
- Mejogid, on 06/05/2009, -0/+5Or the fact that they're using a system no self-respecting gamer would buy, with games consequently running at un-playable frame rates. Whilet his may be in some way indicative of actual performance, I wouldn't count on it...
- CLShortFuse, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Extract the ISO,
Modify to Source\cversion.ini
Change MinClient to 7000 (or whatever build you're using)
Run the setup
I've gone from Vista x64 to build 7000 => 7022 => 7048 => 7054 => 7068 => 7100 and am now preparing to upgrade to 7201 - Darksoul, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5@cal0140
I have been using windows vista x64 for about five months now and I have not had one hiccup. All systems now are using four gig's of memory as a standard these days and even more with i7 systems, why build a new system and only utilize less then four gigs? there is no point to it. If you know how to run a computer properly there is no problems gaming on a 64 bit system. - inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Yep I agree with you also. XP too was my main OS for many years, but compared to windows 7 it is very outdated. I love how when I installed windows 7, it automatically adjusted my resolution to 1920x1200. That was the first sign how awesome the operating system was. The task bar preview is awesome. My only drawback to win7 is that I have win 7 beta, the version before RC. I can't upgrade my OS to RC. :(
- Shadic, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Go figure an operating system built for computers a decade later would expect more of a high-powered system.
- delusionz, on 06/04/2009, -1/+5far cry 2 was so bad..
- chongli, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4I'm fine with XP at the moment.
I'll wait for the Win7 drivers to fully mature and probably switch to Win7 64-bit in the fall. - magamiako, on 06/04/2009, -1/+5cal0140:
The only app that I've seen that has difficulty on 64-bit Windows is the older Cisco VPN client. Just an FYI. - halo3d, on 06/04/2009, -3/+7Windows XP for me
- jtbndy, on 06/04/2009, -6/+10Hasn't every other Win7 benchmark shown vast improvements over Vista?
Or were those non-gaming benchmarks only? With all the good things I'm hearing about Win7, I'm surprised at the outcome of these benchmarks. - Meep3D, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4"Most of the PC market is consumed by low-polygon titles like Team Fortress 2, budget games like the Sims or MMO's such as World of Warcraft"
I am assuming from your other posts (and name) that you are console fanboy without much PC experience. That's fine. I am just curious why your bashing the PC for exactly the opposite reason that your kind normally does (the upgrade treadmill, new games wont run etc).
Consoles generally are for people who do not want to deal with the complexities of PC ownership, but you get less choice, have to pay more, and are deluding yourself if you think for a second you get better graphics. - Raptor007, on 06/04/2009, -2/+6This article doesn't really have much of a conclusion, but it's interesting to see how the numbers vary depending on which test you run.
It seems like overall, 32-bit games are still doing their best in XP, but anything with a 64-bit build will find performance improvements in Vista or 7 -- both from the additional RAM available and the fact that double and uint64_t operations can be performed more quickly.
It'll be interesting to see how 7 performs once the debug code is stripped out and the drivers are better optimized. - valarking, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3@threeblackdots
Is there a reason you've been nerd raging really hard all over this comments page? - LordVance, on 06/04/2009, -1/+4You completely misunderstand the purpose of new desktop operating systems, don't you? I've seen you post this ***** all up and down this article, each time bashing MS for not making 7 a large improvement over Vista and XP for gaming performance.
Tip - Windows 7 doesn't exist to make video games run faster; releasing a new operating system with marked improvements in other areas and not lowering performance is video games is a victory. Any performance gains they can make from here are all gravy. - shininia, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3Not to mention RTS
- KMartSheriff, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3@JurioLight
"not to mention that windows 7 IS VISTA"
Oh wow, and you're calling me an idiot? - LordVance, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3The only hickups I've had on 64-bit came from small studio software with terrible support and tons of viable, working alternatives (such as anapod explorer/manager - doesn't work worth a damn in vista 64 still, but the company is crap and there are plenty of other ways to get my files on and off my ipod).
- decoy26517, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3@Solid
I'd say that's a great thing about the PC market. You COULD run some modern games on a Geforce 4, but if you want to look at all of the pretty little extras you'll need a better video card. I'd say that's a nice feature, you can't however play PS3 games on an PS2 now can you?
As for MGS, I wasn't that impressed with the graphics. They were nice but not mind blowing. When you put Crysis with the Natural Mod out to the max its a lot better imo. - Cockslap, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3I KNOW he doesn't know what he's talking about.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is